D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[GreenTengu]

Heavyweight fighters are quite often literally musclebound - as in they have developed their muscles past the point at which they start restricting movement. It is still possible for a very large and heavy person to do a backflip.
Lions and similar big cats in D&D are not only several times larger than a standard human, they also are more dextrous and good at stealth. Maybe bugbears have pads on their feet and similar adaptations to being stealthy?


List of things covered by dexterity: Physical agility, reflexes, balance, poise. - None of that is negated by being big and strong, unless you're equating strong to being heavily overdeveloped on one area to the detriment of another.
I mean, that's just common sense, right?


Who is saying that bugbears can't have good balance, reflexes etc?

Bugbears are naturally so big and thick that you know their muscles have developed to the point of restricting movement.

Furthermore, do I really need to explain the inverse square law to you? Being huge absolutely restricts one's physical agility, reflexes, balance and poise. Because the additional muscle mass you pack on hardly makes up for the extra weight of those muscles. Someone who is very small but strong has little trouble moving their body around. You make that person twice as big and their strength may double, but their weight quadruples.

You are arguing that rhinos and elephants can bound about like squirrels-- if such a creature were remotely possible, it would already exist.

We don't even need to go to such extreme spectrums of the scale-- look at the reflexes and agility of a leopard compared to a lion. Compare a fox bounding through the underbrush to the comparatively clumsy wolf. And these are very closely related species that show you what a drag being twice the size does to one's abilities to scamper up trees.

Although the fact that you think a lion is more dexterous than an equally fit human suggests to me that you haven't actually seen a lion much less watched video of one in action. You literally think lions are master archers and good at pickpocketing and can dodge arrows. You throw an attack at a lion, it just will not dodge-- far too much body mass to be able to move it out of the way quickly. And the only reason they are more stealthy is because their fur blends in with the savannah. Which is exactly what I am arguing would be why the Bugbear could be stealthy despite size.

It isn't a matter of /who/ is saying it but rather /what/. And that is basic physics and common sense.

 

[Oofta]

@Chaosmancer why do you bother posting? Because it seems like the primary reason is to see how closely you can skirt around violating site rules while insulting and belittling other people's opinions and twisting what they say into something unrecognizable.

My position has been clear from the beginning. I don't think the changes are a huge deal, but I also think ability score modifications help reinforce longstanding archetypes. The game loses more than it gains with Tasha's changes. You? You want to play any race but don't want to play with anything less than a 16 in your primary ability score.

That's it. So why all the insults instead of just discussing ideas?

 

[Remathilis]

Like all skills and attributes, semantics. Big does mean clumsy when you are trying to use sleight of hand. A hand the size of a notebook is going to have a harder time reaching into a pocket than a halfling hand. It also means clumsy when you are performing acrobatics, such as a flip or somersault. That is why heavyweight fighters don't do backflips after they win. And when it comes to stealth, the only other skill that uses dex, the larger something is, generally the easier it is to see. For example, it is easier to spot bear than a marmot. I will grant you, bears can hide really well, but, that doesn't mean it is because of their great dex. It is because they blend into the surroundings, have a keen sense of where others are, and seen wise as to views.

So do you propose giving bugbears (and other "large" races like Goliaths or firbolg) a racial automatic disadvantage to sleight of hand checks?

 

[Scott Christian]

Easier than just saying "I want to play a Gith"? Easier than playing a Rogue and saying "I want to play a high elf"?

There is a concept of diminishing returns. A change that has an effect has less and less of an effect the more the change is repeated.

These builds were already so easy that making them even easier is like throwing water balloons at the people in the Sea World Splash Zone. Sure. you are objectively adding more water to the situation, but it isn't like anyone is really going to notice getting any wetter.

One, I like your analogy. Two, yes, easier than saying, "I want to play a gith."

This is an incredibly poor analogy. Because, this rule doesn't make playing a Dwarf Wizard possible, it makes it potentially mechanically equal to playing a Gnome Wizard. In the stats the DM will see the least.

So, if a Dwarf Wizard is crab legs, those are already at the table. Have been since you set down the first 5e plate.

And, Thanksgiving is vastly different for different people. My Thanksgiving traditonal meals are likely not everyone's (in fact I would say there are at least three dishes I can think of off the top of my head you did not include). So, this myth you have constructed is already false. There is no "common meal" for everyone to agree on at their own house. And, every campaign "table" has unique flavors anyways.

What this analogy really seems to say is that my crab legs aren't welcome at your table. Which is fine, I have my own table, but I don't see why you need to condemn the recipe book just because it offers things you don't consider "traditional"

And yes, Thanksgiving tables, like D&D tables have different traditions. But, we'll say the Joy of Cooking (a standard cookbook for all chefs) is the D&D rulebook. Guess what? It gives you the "traditional" Thanksgiving meal. When my Greek friend brings moussaka, it is our tradition. I should not push Moussaka on everyone else because the whole flavor palate thing. And I certainly shouldn't be pushing it to be included in the Joy of Cooking cookbook's traditional Thanksgiving meal.

LOL, really? Wow, appeals to internal logic.

Fair enough. People are diverse, they have a very diverse set of circumstances, genetics, preferences, ect that lead to them being very different people.

They can also be trained to change their physical body or their mind a lot. I am not a strong man now, but if I spent six years on an intense gym work out, I'd likely be much much much stronger. People can train themselves to address a large variety of different tasks with increased awareness, charm, or intellect.

Dwarves and Elves are people. Not human, sure, but people nonetheless, so a Dwarf or an Elf could do the same thing.

You are correct. That is what the other side has consistently said - these "races" have diverse genetics. All of them can go train, it is just at level one, one race might go in and workout and be stronger (at level 1) than another - by 1 point! Yet, somehow that is not good enough. Some want them to be exactly the same.

And, finally, no one sees me roll for stats for an NPC. I don't decide to make the captain of the guard, then pull out my 4d6, roll them and drop the lowest six times, assigning those scores. I also don't use point buy to build the Guard Captain. If I even decide the Captain has stats at all, I just assign them the stats that make sense for them. I actually, in fact, look at their role in the story and assign them the stats that make sense for that role. Relying on Internal Logic.

So, my Tiefling Guard Captain, who has fought and struggled to be accepted by the people, became a hero by fighting for those who hated him during a Goblin Raid and trains constantly to keep in shape and be a good example for his men, can have a strength of 16. No one at the table is going to call me on it (if they even know) because it makes perfect sense that that guy would be pretty dang strong. He isn't breaking the bounds of realism, and his story matches with his stats.

But, he would not be creatable by point buy or standard array per the PHB.

In fact, most NPC statblocks can't be made with point buy, either being too low or too high. So... what realism am I breaking? That a man who trains every day to increase his strength is strong? That a Guard captain is stronger, tougher, smarter, more observant and charismatic than a potato farmer?

And yes, I made them better at almost everything. But, so does the monster manual. Look at the CR 2 Bandit Captain.
Str: 15 Dex: 16 Con: 14 Int: 14 Wis: 11 Cha: 14

Since I can add racial modifiers to that, I know that that is before racial mods, so what would it take to purchase this as a Point Buy? 44 points by my math. Nearly double the Point Buy value.

But, this isn't a problem, because there is a logic to the fantasy world, and this does not break that logic.

So, the DM assigning the scores he needs won't either.

You see, here is where you fail to see the actual analogy. The crux it rests upon is the food. (The exceptional) Your captain is not food, he is a wine glass or a fork or a knife. He is common, not exceptional. Of course, as DM, you can give him whatever stats you like. That does nothing to the game, to change out a flat wine glass for a stemmed wine glass. Nothing. Because all he does is help set a mood.
No one here is debating what a DM can and can't do. No one here is debating the creation of NPC's. They are debating how making races homogenous will affect the game.

Honestly, it was something I often considered doing. Instead, most people rolled, and we instituted rules for dealing with low rolls, and basically just tried to get higher than the array or point buy.

But, that house rule you propose.... It wouldn't be any different in practice than this optional Tasha's rule. And if nothing changes... why would people be for that if they are against this?

I notice you do not address what I actually said.
And...
I also notice you are now saying a house rule is the same thing as information found in a official D&D publication.
I am just going to rewrite this so you can address this:

That is the point many have made. Let's make it easier for this elf to have this. But, and here is what the other side keeps saying: You can have your elf learn oratory skills. They can be intelligent wise. You can do it right from the start. You can point buy them a 15 intelligence wisdom. That is way above the average. You can do this in the rules as they are written in the PHB. No need to change anything.

But wait... what do I hear? The war horn of someone...
who...
wants...
a...
16 to start with.

See. It goes both ways, which is why I am not taking a side. I am simply answering your question. You can have exactly what you ask for, a high score in any attribute. But, the average PC's chosen race is set up with strengths. One that says: when a PC chooses this race, the race is +X better than the other races.

Now if you do not like that, that is okay. You can just have the DM create a house rule that negates this and change the point buy to where players can reach 16 or 18 or 20.

But for some reason that doesn't sit as well. Not with me. Not with you (I am guessing). Not with a lot of people.

You see, you can already do exactly what you want with the PHB. Exactly. Except some can't. Why? Because they want to start with a 16, not a 15. That is the distillation of the entire argument from your side.
Players who want to show that their elf works out can. They point buy to 15. That is way above the norm. And guess what? They can move it up to 17 four levels later. Then four more levels they can move it to 19. Then at level 12, they are equal to those crazy dwarves that had such a head start!
But that is not what some want. Some want to start at 16. That's it. You can offer lore reasons, and this fully rebukes it.

What your side can offer is the ability to say: "I want to start with a 16 in my preferred race/class combination because I think it is unfair that I have to start with a 15."

That is when the other side interjects and says, "I like this unfairness because it creates unique blends and helps paint the lore."

And then your side says: "I think making things equitable would create lore too."

And the world keeps spinning along with our mouths. (But the bold is what matters.)

I was pulling in some issues other posters have had.

And, if making rare things more common is the effect, again, that is exactly what I want. And I don't see how that hurts the game.

See the above fake argument for how this is addressed. It is legitimate. It is valid. Just not to the other side.

 

[Scott Christian]

Heavyweight fighters are quite often literally musclebound - as in they have developed their muscles past the point at which they start restricting movement. It is still possible for a very large and heavy person to do a backflip.
Lions and similar big cats in D&D are not only several times larger than a standard human, they also are more dextrous and good at stealth. Maybe bugbears have pads on their feet and similar adaptations to being stealthy?

I have never seen any heavyweight fighter do a backflip except into a pool or something similar. Flyweights, which are faster and often, more flexible, do it all the time.
And I did point out that big things could be stealthy. I mentioned bears. (I have watched four separate groups of hikers walk right past a bear and not even know it!) But, then I went on to say exactly what you said - there are physical adaptations and a keenness that allows them to be stealthy. It is not because of their dex.
So I completely agree, make bugbears stealthy. Give them a proficiency. Heck, give them expertise. I am fine with it. But, dexterous beyond the norm they are not.

 

[Scott Christian]

So do you propose giving bugbears (and other "large" races like Goliaths or firbolg) a racial automatic disadvantage to sleight of hand checks?

No. Too much real life simulation makes for a slower game. And I am a fan of moving the game along. But, I do like the stealth idea, just not through dex. Maybe proficient or expertise. I am good with it. At least that is how I feel. But I am open to thoughts and ideas. It's just how my brain rationalizes gameplay experience with internal game-world logic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They are literally born of dragons. That's why.

So are kobolds.

So first, there's nothing arbitrary about it. It's well reasoned. Second, the Bugbear stealth ability literally says...

"Despite their intimidating builds, bugbears move with surprising stealth." Their builds are first and stealth second. They could put the stealth in the primary spot, but they didn't because the stealth is secondary to their builds. +2 strength and +1 dex. Again, it makes perfect sense.

So, "despite their build" means to you that their build is more important? Not the fact that, even with their build, they are incredibly dexterous and stealthy?

I didn't know well reasoned arguments worked that way, I figured that if something said, "despite its large size, this is one of the fastest cars" That I would not say that the size is the most important feature.

Yep. Strength bonuses for size abound.

You're the one who wants the floating ability. Not me. You are also engaging a fairly egregious Strawman there. Nobody on our side, especially me, has said that the racial bonus is all that defines these races. They also have racial abilities to set them apart, so no, none of them have been reduced to being mechanically identical.

Really? No one?

So, if I dug back through these posts I wouldn't find both Oofta and Helldritch lamenting the fact that with Tasha's all races would be reduced to "humans in rubber masks/suits"?

Oh, I bet I know, they aren't saying it is "all" that defines the race, it is just so important that the removal of it removes all unique identifying features from them and makes them no better than a rubber mask.

And, you are turning this around, but ignoring what I was saying. If you are fine with "this group of races gets a +2
strength and floating +2" and "this group of races gets a +2 Dex and a floating +2" (which by the way, this would likely cover the majority of races between those two) and think that those races can maintain their unique identities... then you should also agree that those races being able to assign their scores as desired will let them keep their unique identities. Which yes, people on "your side" have argued will not be the case.

But if six races having a +2 Strength because they are big can stay unique, then the idea that needing unique stat arrays to hold their identity (once again) is false.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bugbears are naturally so big and thick that you know their muscles have developed to the point of restricting movement.

Wrong. Because their joints and long limbs or even how their muscles are situated could easily allow them to be big without restricting movement at all.

Furthermore, do I really need to explain the inverse square law to you? Being huge absolutely restricts one's physical agility, reflexes, balance and poise. Because the additional muscle mass you pack on hardly makes up for the extra weight of those muscles. Someone who is very small but strong has little trouble moving their body around. You make that person twice as big and their strength may double, but their weight quadruples.

You are arguing that rhinos and elephants can bound about like squirrels-- if such a creature were remotely possible, it would already exist.

We don't even need to go to such extreme spectrums of the scale-- look at the reflexes and agility of a leopard compared to a lion. Compare a fox bounding through the underbrush to the comparatively clumsy wolf. And these are very closely related species that show you what a drag being twice the size does to one's abilities to scamper up trees.

Although the fact that you think a lion is more dexterous than an equally fit human suggests to me that you haven't actually seen a lion much less watched video of one in action. You literally think lions are master archers and good at pickpocketing and can dodge arrows. You throw an attack at a lion, it just will not dodge-- far too much body mass to be able to move it out of the way quickly. And the only reason they are more stealthy is because their fur blends in with the savannah. Which is exactly what I am arguing would be why the Bugbear could be stealthy despite size.

It isn't a matter of /who/ is saying it but rather /what/. And that is basic physics and common sense.

All the rest of this gets into a bit of absurdity, and ignoring the point of Cap'n Kobold, who wasn't talking about watching lions on the savanna, but talking about the lion statblock in the game. Which has a dex of 15, much higher than your human commoner.

And, this is really why I think your analogy is just flawed all the way around. You are basing it off of the physics of the square-cube law, and from that drawing the conclusion that small things are faster and more dexterous than big things.

Which is a gross oversimplication.

Chickens and Penguins are smaller than me. I can outrun them. Wolves and Bears are bigger than me, I cannot outrun them.

And with that alone, I have broken your argument, as it was presented. So, now, most likely you would argue I'm not comparing similiar body structures, which, goes right back to the point I made up above. Bugbears may be bigger than your common man (though is it really enough of a difference to matter) but I've seen big, muscular men doing Parkour. There is no reason to assume that Bugbears are somehow less capable of being dexterous and athletic just because they are big.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Chaosmancer why do you bother posting? Because it seems like the primary reason is to see how closely you can skirt around violating site rules while insulting and belittling other people's opinions and twisting what they say into something unrecognizable.

My position has been clear from the beginning. I don't think the changes are a huge deal, but I also think ability score modifications help reinforce longstanding archetypes. The game loses more than it gains with Tasha's changes. You? You want to play any race but don't want to play with anything less than a 16 in your primary ability score.

That's it. So why all the insults instead of just discussing ideas?

I did and am trying to discuss ideas. But, after digging deep into a proposed reasoning behind why those ability score mods should be considered integral to the culture of the race, something that was a proposed idea and that you were responding to, what was the result?

I had both posters whom I had been debating with for multiple pages tell me that none of it mattered anyways. They didn't care about that point.

So, what should I do next? Make up points to argue against? You say the archetypes are going to suffer, but you have no reasoning, you are just stating it. Dwarves will no longer be tough, because everyone has the potential to be tough, and all fighters are going to be tough, so Dwarves won't be tough?

But, NPCs are 100% of the purview of the DM. And there is a long tradition of those statblocks not abiding by the same rules as players. So, nothing changes on that front, no matter what the player's rules are.

And, at least at my table, all fighters and barbarians have high Cons anyways, dwarves or not. All the wizards have high Intelligence, whether or not they are gnomes or not.

So, the only thing changing, is that I might see a gnome fighter. Something that is completely possible right now. Heck, going for dex-based fighter, I could likely pull that off anyways, I would just be behind where I want to be as a character in DnD.

So, I've narrowed it down, I've addressed angle after angle, and I still don't see what the game is losing. Something you can't really define, it seems, because you won't define it. It is just an ephemeral something.

Meanwhile, I see benefit after benefit. I've had player after player come to me and express interest in these rules, saying that is about time DnD made these rules.

So, on one hand, I have a ton of positive support outside of the internet. And on the other, I have a few people here telling me that the game will be ruined, that the game will be changed beyond recongition, that every race will be a human in a rubber mask... and they can't tell me why, just insisting it will be so.

So, I don't know why I keep posting. Because it seems to be nothing but grief, for no good reason.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes, Thanksgiving tables, like D&D tables have different traditions. But, we'll say the Joy of Cooking (a standard cookbook for all chefs) is the D&D rulebook. Guess what? It gives you the "traditional" Thanksgiving meal. When my Greek friend brings moussaka, it is our tradition. I should not push Moussaka on everyone else because the whole flavor palate thing. And I certainly shouldn't be pushing it to be included in the Joy of Cooking cookbook's traditional Thanksgiving meal.

But you are perfectly fine telling Simon and Schuster (the publishers of "The Joy of Cooking") that they shouldn't publish a new cookbook that shows people how to integrate Moussaka into a Thanksgiving Meal? That tells non-greek people how to make it?

Because, that is all Tasha's is. "Here is how to do this, if you want." and by supporting that I am being told I am shoving that flavor into everyone's face.

Helldritch was the big person who kept protesting this. They claimed that new DMs would be so blinded by it being an official product that they wouldn't realize that it was destroying their game and ruining the experience. Therefore, it shouldn't even be a published book.

Which, it will be. The publisher is making a book to tell us how to add Moussaka to Thanksgiving Dinner. If that is fine when an individual does it, why can't the publisher do it?

You are correct. That is what the other side has consistently said - these "races" have diverse genetics. All of them can go train, it is just at level one, one race might go in and workout and be stronger (at level 1) than another - by 1 point! Yet, somehow that is not good enough. Some want them to be exactly the same.

Because the game mechanics matter for the game mechanics. I have seen this in play. I have had two clerics who felt like a drag upon the party, because they had a 15 wisdom instead of a 16. And one was not played by me, but was another player, who was quite unhappy with the situation.

But for the story? For the World? You are right, 15 or 16 doesn't matter. But that just shows that this is an entirely mechanical rule, with limited impact on anything outside of players.

You see, here is where you fail to see the actual analogy. The crux it rests upon is the food. (The exceptional) Your captain is not food, he is a wine glass or a fork or a knife. He is common, not exceptional. Of course, as DM, you can give him whatever stats you like. That does nothing to the game, to change out a flat wine glass for a stemmed wine glass. Nothing. Because all he does is help set a mood.
No one here is debating what a DM can and can't do. No one here is debating the creation of NPC's. They are debating how making races homogenous will affect the game.

By addressing NPCs. By saying it will affect the world.

By talking about the "common" parts of the table. Talking about the mood.

If those don't matter, then the entire argument is that somehow the DMs world-building is ruined by the choices of race and class the player's make. Which I'm not sure how that would even work.

I notice you do not address what I actually said.
And...
I also notice you are now saying a house rule is the same thing as information found in a official D&D publication.

So, if the end result is the same... why does it matter if it was an officially published optional rule or a houserule?

The DM can choose to use it or not either way. The results on the game at the table are the same either way. What is the difference? A logo? The fact that more people will see it?

I am just going to rewrite this so you can address this:

I didn't address it because there was nothing to address.

I am not against houserules to increase point buy, but they aren't being published in the book and are not the subject of the discussion.

Yes, you could always put your highest score in the stat you want. That has been the case since the beginning.

The only other part of your post you might want me to address is the 16. And, yeah, I've said it. I do want a 16. So what? It is perfectly within the realm of the possible in the game. Trivially so. I have experience that not having that stat makes my players have less fun.

But, my players and myself wanting a 16 shouldn't matter for discussing this rule, the only place I can see someone taking this information is to somehow try to use it to make this only about my preferences in 16's. Which, has nothing to do with their actual arguments against the rule. At least, none that they have stated, that me wanting a 16 somehow is a deal breaker for this rule.

You see, you can already do exactly what you want with the PHB. Exactly. Except some can't. Why? Because they want to start with a 16, not a 15. That is the distillation of the entire argument from your side.
Players who want to show that their elf works out can. They point buy to 15. That is way above the norm. And guess what? They can move it up to 17 four levels later. Then four more levels they can move it to 19. Then at level 12, they are equal to those crazy dwarves that had such a head start!
But that is not what some want. Some want to start at 16. That's it. You can offer lore reasons, and this fully rebukes it.

So, you want this to be only about how I want a 16, and therefore none of my other points matter? A full rebuttal only requires that I want two things instead of one?

Does the fact that I want a new car for a new stereo system completely rebut my desire for a new car to be more fuel effiecient? Has my one desire overridden the other? I could get a care with a new stereo system without getting a fuel economic car. Does that mean that I should settle for only half of what I want?

But, I guess in your mind it does. I'm either trying to decieve you, or decieve myself. You feel like you have ascertained the truth and that nothing else I say matters. So, why say more? You've made your mind about me, before I even told you my preference.

 

[Oofta]

So are kobolds.



So, "despite their build" means to you that their build is more important? Not the fact that, even with their build, they are incredibly dexterous and stealthy?

I didn't know well reasoned arguments worked that way, I figured that if something said, "despite its large size, this is one of the fastest cars" That I would not say that the size is the most important feature.



Really? No one?

So, if I dug back through these posts I wouldn't find both Oofta and Helldritch lamenting the fact that with Tasha's all races would be reduced to "humans in rubber masks/suits"?

Oh, I bet I know, they aren't saying it is "all" that defines the race, it is just so important that the removal of it removes all unique identifying features from them and makes them no better than a rubber mask.

And, you are turning this around, but ignoring what I was saying. If you are fine with "this group of races gets a +2
strength and floating +2" and "this group of races gets a +2 Dex and a floating +2" (which by the way, this would likely cover the majority of races between those two) and think that those races can maintain their unique identities... then you should also agree that those races being able to assign their scores as desired will let them keep their unique identities. Which yes, people on "your side" have argued will not be the case.

But if six races having a +2 Strength because they are big can stay unique, then the idea that needing unique stat arrays to hold their identity (once again) is false.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Wrong. Because their joints and long limbs or even how their muscles are situated could easily allow them to be big without restricting movement at all.



All the rest of this gets into a bit of absurdity, and ignoring the point of Cap'n Kobold, who wasn't talking about watching lions on the savanna, but talking about the lion statblock in the game. Which has a dex of 15, much higher than your human commoner.

And, this is really why I think your analogy is just flawed all the way around. You are basing it off of the physics of the square-cube law, and from that drawing the conclusion that small things are faster and more dexterous than big things.

Which is a gross oversimplication.

Chickens and Penguins are smaller than me. I can outrun them. Wolves and Bears are bigger than me, I cannot outrun them.

And with that alone, I have broken your argument, as it was presented. So, now, most likely you would argue I'm not comparing similiar body structures, which, goes right back to the point I made up above. Bugbears may be bigger than your common man (though is it really enough of a difference to matter) but I've seen big, muscular men doing Parkour. There is no reason to assume that Bugbears are somehow less capable of being dexterous and athletic just because they are big.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I did and am trying to discuss ideas. But, after digging deep into a proposed reasoning behind why those ability score mods should be considered integral to the culture of the race, something that was a proposed idea and that you were responding to, what was the result?

I had both posters whom I had been debating with for multiple pages tell me that none of it mattered anyways. They didn't care about that point.

So, what should I do next? Make up points to argue against? You say the archetypes are going to suffer, but you have no reasoning, you are just stating it. Dwarves will no longer be tough, because everyone has the potential to be tough, and all fighters are going to be tough, so Dwarves won't be tough?

But, NPCs are 100% of the purview of the DM. And there is a long tradition of those statblocks not abiding by the same rules as players. So, nothing changes on that front, no matter what the player's rules are.

And, at least at my table, all fighters and barbarians have high Cons anyways, dwarves or not. All the wizards have high Intelligence, whether or not they are gnomes or not.

So, the only thing changing, is that I might see a gnome fighter. Something that is completely possible right now. Heck, going for dex-based fighter, I could likely pull that off anyways, I would just be behind where I want to be as a character in DnD.

So, I've narrowed it down, I've addressed angle after angle, and I still don't see what the game is losing. Something you can't really define, it seems, because you won't define it. It is just an ephemeral something.

Meanwhile, I see benefit after benefit. I've had player after player come to me and express interest in these rules, saying that is about time DnD made these rules.

So, on one hand, I have a ton of positive support outside of the internet. And on the other, I have a few people here telling me that the game will be ruined, that the game will be changed beyond recongition, that every race will be a human in a rubber mask... and they can't tell me why, just insisting it will be so.

So, I don't know why I keep posting. Because it seems to be nothing but grief, for no good reason.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But you are perfectly fine telling Simon and Schuster (the publishers of "The Joy of Cooking") that they shouldn't publish a new cookbook that shows people how to integrate Moussaka into a Thanksgiving Meal? That tells non-greek people how to make it?

Because, that is all Tasha's is. "Here is how to do this, if you want." and by supporting that I am being told I am shoving that flavor into everyone's face.

Helldritch was the big person who kept protesting this. They claimed that new DMs would be so blinded by it being an official product that they wouldn't realize that it was destroying their game and ruining the experience. Therefore, it shouldn't even be a published book.

Which, it will be. The publisher is making a book to tell us how to add Moussaka to Thanksgiving Dinner. If that is fine when an individual does it, why can't the publisher do it?




Because the game mechanics matter for the game mechanics. I have seen this in play. I have had two clerics who felt like a drag upon the party, because they had a 15 wisdom instead of a 16. And one was not played by me, but was another player, who was quite unhappy with the situation.

But for the story? For the World? You are right, 15 or 16 doesn't matter. But that just shows that this is an entirely mechanical rule, with limited impact on anything outside of players.



By addressing NPCs. By saying it will affect the world.

By talking about the "common" parts of the table. Talking about the mood.

If those don't matter, then the entire argument is that somehow the DMs world-building is ruined by the choices of race and class the player's make. Which I'm not sure how that would even work.



So, if the end result is the same... why does it matter if it was an officially published optional rule or a houserule?

The DM can choose to use it or not either way. The results on the game at the table are the same either way. What is the difference? A logo? The fact that more people will see it?



I didn't address it because there was nothing to address.

I am not against houserules to increase point buy, but they aren't being published in the book and are not the subject of the discussion.

Yes, you could always put your highest score in the stat you want. That has been the case since the beginning.

The only other part of your post you might want me to address is the 16. And, yeah, I've said it. I do want a 16. So what? It is perfectly within the realm of the possible in the game. Trivially so. I have experience that not having that stat makes my players have less fun.

But, my players and myself wanting a 16 shouldn't matter for discussing this rule, the only place I can see someone taking this information is to somehow try to use it to make this only about my preferences in 16's. Which, has nothing to do with their actual arguments against the rule. At least, none that they have stated, that me wanting a 16 somehow is a deal breaker for this rule.



So, you want this to be only about how I want a 16, and therefore none of my other points matter? A full rebuttal only requires that I want two things instead of one?

Does the fact that I want a new car for a new stereo system completely rebut my desire for a new car to be more fuel effiecient? Has my one desire overridden the other? I could get a care with a new stereo system without getting a fuel economic car. Does that mean that I should settle for only half of what I want?

But, I guess in your mind it does. I'm either trying to decieve you, or decieve myself. You feel like you have ascertained the truth and that nothing else I say matters. So, why say more? You've made your mind about me, before I even told you my preference.

So basically all of that to say "My arguments are far superior to yours. I'm right, you've proven nothing, neener neener".

There's nothing to "prove" here. I think the current ability score system is a decent way to reinforce archetypes. Most people don't care about lore, they base their concept of what a race is on imagery and what they see other people play. Yes, gnomes are more likely to be wizards than barbarians. That's part of their archetype, part of their easily identifiable role in the game. That's the point.

On the other hand a gnome could make a fine strength based PC because a 95% of the time it's not going to make a difference. It's not a hard concept, the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that someone else's opinion might be valid ... well have a good one.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, you want this to be only about how I want a 16, and therefore none of my other points matter? A full rebuttal only requires that I want two things instead of one?

Does the fact that I want a new car for a new stereo system completely rebut my desire for a new car to be more fuel effiecient? Has my one desire overridden the other? I could get a care with a new stereo system without getting a fuel economic car. Does that mean that I should settle for only half of what I want?

But, I guess in your mind it does. I'm either trying to decieve you, or decieve myself. You feel like you have ascertained the truth and that nothing else I say matters. So, why say more? You've made your mind about me, before I even told you my preference.

I would never use the word deceive.

You stated you want a 16. That doesn't mean the others that want this book want a 16. I agree.

But if they want to create lore, by making odd race/class combinations. Yet the only way to increase players using those combinations is by giving someone a 16 in the beginning, then that is what the essence of the argument is still about.

It is the same for the other side. They think the PHB does a good job at reinforcing race/class combinations, and thus, keeping intact the lore as it is at present. It does this by making some race/class combinations less effective at lower levels at their primary "schtick." (They may be better at other things, but never really combat.)

All I am saying is the essence of this debate for the side that wants the change is the 16. I could say the essence of the debate on the other side is the 15. The rest is speculation on the effects that this 16 will have. We know the effects of the 15 - it keeps many players from exploring race/class combinations that aren't optimal.

I have not ascertained a truth. But I do know that rule changes are often made because they want to make things easier. And min/maxers, optimizers and players that like immediate gratification are always happier with easier. It gives them the possibilities they wanted. But it comes at a cost. For some, the easier route is a lot less fun. Much like the player at your table that didn't have fun because they had a 15 instead of a 16 in wisdom at the start of the game. The reverse can be true. (Oofta and others have given you a myriad of reasons to explain this.)

So if you want to speculate on the effects that having a 16 for all race/class combinations will have. I am happy to read them. But if you want to continue to debate that the argument is more than just about having a 16, then you are right, I have a truth. I know that anyone can make any character with a score that is 95% equal to any other character. And I also know that is not equal enough for some.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I would never use the word deceive.

You stated you want a 16. That doesn't mean the others that want this book want a 16. I agree.

But if they want to create lore, by making odd race/class combinations. Yet the only way to increase players using those combinations is by giving someone a 16 in the beginning, then that is what the essence of the argument is still about.

It is the same for the other side. They think the PHB does a good job at reinforcing race/class combinations, and thus, keeping intact the lore as it is at present. It does this by making some race/class combinations less effective at lower levels at their primary "schtick." (They may be better at other things, but never really combat.)

All I am saying is the essence of this debate for the side that wants the change is the 16. I could say the essence of the debate on the other side is the 15. The rest is speculation on the effects that this 16 will have. We know the effects of the 15 - it keeps many players from exploring race/class combinations that aren't optimal.

I have not ascertained a truth. But I do know that rule changes are often made because they want to make things easier. And min/maxers, optimizers and players that like immediate gratification are always happier with easier. It gives them the possibilities they wanted. But it comes at a cost. For some, the easier route is a lot less fun. Much like the player at your table that didn't have fun because they had a 15 instead of a 16 in wisdom at the start of the game. The reverse can be true. (Oofta and others have given you a myriad of reasons to explain this.)

So if you want to speculate on the effects that having a 16 for all race/class combinations will have. I am happy to read them. But if you want to continue to debate that the argument is more than just about having a 16, then you are right, I have a truth. I know that anyone can make any character with a score that is 95% equal to any other character. And I also know that is not equal enough for some.

but the irony is that you could play with a person of either preference and perhaps not even know it. It’s funny how specific (self included) fans of this game can be about what is desirable.

people barely into the game would be scratching their head about this whole long debate.